Peace
be with you. I am resending this revised and final version of my
Comment on Judy Wood's 'New Hiroshima' to the addressed recipients as
an open letter because in it, I am explicitly expressing my humble
0.2 cents worth of opinion on the credibility of Steven Jones et.
al.'s work. Please be advised that I have no affiliation with either
Judy Wood or with any of the recipients of this email, nor have I
ever met her or anyone else from among the recipients. I don't know
any of you personally. What interests me as an ordinary justice
activist suffering the largesses of “imperial mobilization”
are two aspects of your public role in this HOW topic of 9/11.
Specifically,

1)
evidence which betrays motivation of its exponents ; and

2)
authenticity of evidence-stream which you publicly bring to the fore
in your respective exponentiations which directly impact public
opinion.

Anyone
who impacts public opinion is of interest to me. I always examine
both the aspects noted above simultaneously. I drew this inspiration
from the famous Bernard Lewis of Princeton who wrote in his book “The
Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror” the
following shrewd sentence as justification for writing his vile book
with that equally vile and specious title: “Terrorism
requires only a few. Obviously the West must defend itself by
whatever means will be effective. But in devising means to fight the
terrorist, it would surely be useful to understand the forces that
drive them.”

I
have ever since been inspired by the idea that it is always “useful
to understand the forces that drive them” in order to
examine the forces which drive anything, any mantra, and every
individual who brings a mantra. The work of any individual or group
or organization or institution is not divorced from the forces which
drive them if Bernard Lewis' prescription is correct. The British
Svengali and former OSS operative used this notion to seed falsehoods
in the form of fabricating motivations to make the “clash of
civilizations” believable to the ignorant public in America
and the West. I employ it, judiciously always, to unlayer and uncover
deceit of people like him who shill for empire, either overtly or
covertly.

Since
the remains of 9/11 are no more preserved as crime scene evidence,
except in copious images and videos, those who bring their
eruditeness to the fore as either self-appointed crime-scene experts,
or as experts appointed by the establishment, are part of the
evidence themselves. If they stand discredited, or if their motives
are suspect, so is their evidence stream unless other unimpeachable
sources for that evidence-stream is found. If they are incestuously
the only source, the evidence lives or dies solely by the credibility
of its exponents. One is not separate from the other, and those who
separate them in innocence, may, I hope, become better informed by
reading my article below. This is a well known rejection criterion to
reject evidence from those who commit fraud, or have committed fraud
in the past, or are known to be allied with those whom they purport
to give evidence against, or are known to promulgate deception.

If
anyone has ever been on Jury selection, they would have surely
observed the emphasis by the prosecution team as well as the defense
team to discredit the other team's witnesses. HolocaustTM
is entirely about blanket acceptance of witnesses and testifiers
without examining their integrity and motivations, and not about
evidence. Whereas, 9/11 has uncannily become entirely about blanket
acceptance of evidence without questioning either the validity of
that evidence, or the motivations and integrity of the testifiers who
bring forth that evidence, just as in the former case. I find that
similarity very intriguing.

Because,
if one were to ask cui bono, one is not surprised. Each case serves
an agenda which is other than uncovering what really happened in
those respective crimes against humanity. The former, with the TM,
serves the agenda of sustaining the legitimization of Zionism in the
mind of the goyem, and the endless extortion of both sympathies and
restitution monies from them. The latter serves the agenda of
sustaining “imperial mobilization” one way or another.
From certain vantage point, it can be rather hard to distinguish
between the two monumental crimes of recent memory the import of
which continues to direly resonate globally today.

Of
course, it is also obvious that passing the aforementioned rejection
criterion of discrediting the witness does not automatically
constitute an acceptance criterion for the evidence-stream, and that
is also a universally accepted practice. Acceptance and rejection
criterion are two distinct and separate things.

This
fact is especially important in the forensic unraveling of a crime
whose hard evidence has been rapidly removed, a monumental crime
which is a priori known to be wrapped in layers of deceit, false
clues and red herrings to serve imperial agendas, one whose import is
so “transforming” that it must not be unraveled within
the time frame that its obfuscation is needed to accomplish all faits
accomplis seeded by it, and whose continued obfuscation is required
in order to complete the intended transformations. I don't think
anyone can sensibly disagree with any of this.

Nor
can anyone sensibly disagree with the fact that 9/11 was one such
monumental crime which fits the aforementioned attributes to a “T”.
A supreme crime analogous to Hitler's 'Operation Canned Goods' used
as pretext to commit the supreme international crime of aggression,
to “goosestep the herrenvolk across international frontiers”
(as noted at Nuremberg) for the exact same purpose of acquiring a
“greater Lebensraum”. Just that in this case which
plagues us today with an even greater tour de force of evil,
Lebensraum is “world government”.

All
this is brazenly obvious today and surely known to everyone of the
recipients. If anyone denies any of it, please deny it publicly (and
leave me a pointer to it) so that the public can also judge your
knowledge of the world, your sophistication and objectivity in
analyzing current affairs and the historical chain of events that has
brought us here, and your inherent biases in which you cradle your
worldview and thus your pursuits. Which ones among you are exponents
of Zionistan I would surely like to know. Who among you seeks World
Government, I would also like to learn that (see footnote [19]).

Therefore,
henceforth, as presumably entirely genuine and objective scientists
pursuing a hard scientific inquiry into a crime which, one ab initio
accepts, is wrapped in layers upon layers of deception by its very
nature, let me know why anyone should believe Jones et. al.'s
evidence-stream, or disbelieve Judy Wood's evidence stream that is
entirely drawn from public-domain sources which challenges the former
and spotlights some new aspects which were hitherto unknown (at least
to many people like myself).

Please
make the case – and this is an entirely different case from
that which any of the recipients have ever been called to make,
namely, it is an ab initio case of why should one believe the
evidence-stream and analysis being presented. But do try to not bring
my humble limitations into the mix by calling me ignorant, or lacking
in due diligence. Therefore, If you wish to respond henceforth, I
enjoin you to make your arguments in public and publish them –
my
article
(appended below) was published here.

And
I thank you in advance for a useful public response, especially one
that shrewdly examines why one might rationally accept anyone's
evidence stream, and specifically addresses fig 5 vs. fig 6 issue
noted below. Namely, which figure is fraudulent, and which is
authentic, and consequently, on what basis might one determine
whether 9/11 destructions were a low temperature or a high
temperature event. Something seen flowing from windows, and/or
glowing in an image/video, is not evidence of heat, only of low
viscosity and its color temperature. I am sure the recipients as
scientists and engineers are aware of this and know the difference
between color temperature and heat-content. In Photoshop for
instance, one can produce any color temperature – as you all
know – and make things vicariously look hot or cold. We
interpret these color temperatures based on our everyday experiences
on what we expect looks hot and therefore can easily be fooled even
if deception is not the purpose. Therefore, from that flow of some
fluid and/or its color temperature, to leap to "hot" as in
heat – please provide the evidence if you are Jones et. al. (or
their partisan with any technical expertise), and why one might
disbelieve Judy Wood when she says "not hot" based on all
the photographic evidence-stream she presents, if you are among her
many detractors.

'Psychological
Operations: Planned operations to convey selected
information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence
their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the
behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and
individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce
or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the
originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also
consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime
psychological operations programs; perception
management. ' US Department of
Defense

Figure 5.
Original image. The fellow with the shovel, wearing a blue
shirt, appears to be standing down in this hole.(9/12/01)
Source(archive.org)

Figure 6.
This is the image Jones captions “Workers evidently
peering into the hot “core” under the WTC
rubble.”(9/12?/01) Source
(p. 18) (archive.org)

Caption
Fig 5 and Fig 6 from Judy Wood's evidence stream Dirt4.
Is the color temperature evidence of heat in fig 6? The question that
begs that question is whether or not fig 6 is fraudulent in
comparison to fig 5. Jones et. al.'s narrative prima facie becomes
another big lie if fig 6 is doctored and part of Psyops.

Is
Judy Wood's evidence fraudulent? Is her reasoning specious? How -
when firemen are seen in public-domain photographs walking around in
traditional work-boots on what is supposed to be very very hot molten
stuff? As I understand it, Judy Wood has shown that the Jones
evidence is fraudulent, at least in that one instance of fig 5 vs.
fig 6 (see footnote [17]
for details). Which is it? Please prove by evidence and the logic of
the observation which can address both supporting as well as
contradictory evidence, and not by assertions, not by suppressing
what isn't convenient, and not by disparaging the inquiring minds who
want to probe further beyond the polished credentials.

Prove
everything ab initio – no assumptions – beginning with
authenticating everything you bring to bear as evidence. Why should
one believe Steven Jones et. al.'s private experimentation and their
un-authenticated material evidence acquisition published in a
pay-for-peer-reviewed journal in which anyone can publish pretty much
anything if they have $800 to spare? Evidently, most consumers of
Steven Jones et. al.'s work believe it because of claims to being
“peer reviewed” in Bentham Open's online publication.
Unfortunately, it can also be a nice scam – if one wanted it to
be – since it remains unverifiable, because one can always
claim peer-reviews are done anonymously! I also simultaneously
recognize that publishing anything which goes against the ruling
powers and the establishment's mantras is very difficult indeed,
while gibberish can be trivially published if it supports the agendas
of empire (see footnote [25]).

Therefore,
genuine researchers must seek out other ways of venting their
discoveries. And, knowing how hard it is to publish for any would be
Galileo, it is also obvious that the Machiavelli will insist on
bringing peer-reviewed scientific publications to them (as was the
case with Noam Chomsky) before they would even look at the idea that
anyone other than Osama Bin Laden could have done 9/11 (see my letter
to Noam Chomsky when Steven Jones' “peer reviewed” paper
came out, sending a copy to him). It is the false attribution of
being genuinely peer reviewed as is done for instance in an IEEE
journal, to bring the research respectability which is the new
problem for me in Steven Jones et. al's work. I will openly state it
here that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I now suspect
it to be false projection in order to gain respectability. I clearly
see the Hegelian dialectic: publish first before I take you seriously
(Chomsky) vs. I have published so now I must be taken seriously
(Jones). So let's see the process behind “publish” and
also authenticate what was “published”.

Because
the mantra of “peer reviewed” appears everywhere on
Steven Jones et. al.'s websites and it is their claim to credibility,
I wish to dig deeper into this “peer review” business
which their research underwent. It is evidently the primary basis for
their claims before the public that it is genuine scientific research
that they are doing which proves “thermite”. I must admit
that I accepted this claim in the past myself without scrutiny. Not
any longer. And I hope I may be forgiven if I now wish to scrutinize
that claim. Their peer review process to the first order now appears
exactly the same to me as climategate's so called peer reviews:
incestuously assembled. I don't trust anything establishmentarians,
former or current, have to say in their analysis, in this case of
thermite. Additionally, I am puzzled that Steven Jones et. al. also
do not assert thermite presence in any of their submissions to NIST.
Please correct me if I am wrong and do point me to the submission to
NIST which asserts their thermite discovery. As far as I am aware,
and I am not all knowing, Steven Jones et. al. have only asserted
thermite in their copious “peer reviewed” promulgations
before the lay public. I am still awaiting to be corrected on this
count, and I thank the recipients in advance for pointing me to an
official NIST submission, to any official submission before the
establishment's federal institutions, in which the discovery of
thermite, nanothermite, and its assorted brethren, have been asserted
by Steven Jones et. al.

This
is on top of the fact that it is possible that elements and remnants
from traditional “controlled demolition” may have been
found on the crime scene if the purpose was to establish “controlled
demolition” in the mind of the detractors of the official NIST
narratives. I want authentication of that counter narrative to NIST.
This is most essential because almost all of 9/11 Truthers have been
blindly assembled around the second narrative, while all the
mainstream is gathered around the former. Pleading that thermite
evidence before a federal agency increases the confidence in its
authenticity, as doing so fraudulently is to commit a grievous
federal offence which has severe penalties associated with it. But as
we all know, lying to the public is for free – bigger the lie,
greater the expectation of bigger prizes. Richard Gage on his website
ae911truth.org had even pitched the Nobel prize for his confrere
Steven Jones (see footnote [2])!
Perhaps it was just the exuberance of the innocent at having
discovered the wheel (see footnote [26]).
Who is deceiving the public – if anyone – the public
would like to know.

I
remain fully cognizant of the fact that pitching unverifiable mantras
couched in the gooblydook of science is also a game as old as empire
(see footnotes [24]
and [25])
just like striving for hegemony. By that token, I have no a priori
reason to accept Judy Wood's evidence stream, except for the evidence
she has gathered entirely from public sources and explicitly sourced
as such. Then the burden shifts to that source from the one who has
compiled it. It is possible that this evidence-stream itself was
doctored at the source, or misrepresented by the compiler. Please
feel free to provide cogent evidence to that effect. This is
primarily the basis for my inquiry into the aforementioned fig 5 vs.
fig 6 as it potentially separates the chaff from the wheat very
neatly. In one shot, one can know who has mala fide intentions, who
is mistaken, who was themselves deceived, and why should anyone
believe him or her after that determination!

Or,
at least be bold enough, and scientifically accurate enough, to
suggest that this matter may remain inconclusive because the
first-hand evidence from crime scene is gone and the only evidence is
in the photographs. In that latter case, all evidence explanation
which presumes either "hot" or "cold" is at best
speculative and only resolvable indirectly by the logic of other
evidence. If firemen are seen in the images walking around something
which is presumed to be very very hot without burning and scorching
themselves, and are attired in their regular firemen's clothing
without any special heat protection which can withstand the high
temperatures that is being asserted, then the logic of incongruence
automatically indicates the faulty conclusion of heat, and hence
identifies the fraudsters. Does it not? Alternately, it indicates
that some of the public image-evidence is itself fraudulent and/or
misperceived, leading to incorrect conclusions. Which is it? Please
prove your point with some cogent analysis which is empirically
supported without conjectures or “trust” by way of appeal
to authority. I am unfortunately all out of faith in “credentials”
as sufficient proof of either authenticity of claimed empiricism, or
veracity.

I
sincerely believe that any genuine exponent of truth in search of
what really happened on 9/11 and seeking to inform the public will
appreciate this straightforward challenge from an ordinary person
from among the public to authenticate whatever they assert is
evidence, rather than be miffed by it. Please begin by authenticating
fig 5 or fig 6, as I have already spent considerable time analyzing
this and come away completely befuddled on the very basic issue of
whether or not this was a high or low temperature event. I am
inclined to believe Judy Wood's evidence stream as authentic. Am I
being deceived?

Reprint License

All
material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with
full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety,
unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted in perpetuity,
provided the source URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part
of this restricted Reprint License, along with any embedded links within its
main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license
violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All figures, images,
quotations and excerpts, are used without permission based on
non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research
use only in the greater public interest, documenting crimes
against humanity, deconstructing current affairs, and scholarly
commentary. The usage by Project Humanbeingsfirst of all external
material is minimally consistent with the understanding of "fair
use" laws at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse any external website or organization it links to or references, nor those that may link to it or reprint its works.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you
are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your
request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents
in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the
documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You
are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from
other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”.